Internet Engineering Task Force J. Palet
Internet-Draft Consulintel
Expires: June 3, 2006 November 30, 2005
IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria
draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-02.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 3, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document provides the technical and logistic criteria for the
IAD towards the IETF meetings venue selection, which should be
considered in order to conclude the relevant contractual
negotiations.
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Location and Hosting Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Vacation Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Hosting and Sponsorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Freedom of Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Productivity and Working Environment Considerations . . . 5
2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visa Considerations . . . . . . 6
2.6. Decision and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Logistic Criteria for the Venue Selection . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Meeting Rooms Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Other Venue Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Sleeping Rooms Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. Local Transportation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5. Airport/Wide Area Transport Considerations . . . . . . . . 11
3.6. Food Logistics Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.7. Technical and Regulatory Considerations . . . . . . . . . 12
3.8. Health Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Technical Criteria for the Venue Selection . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Logistic Risks and Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Technical Risks and Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Timing and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Venue Acceptance/Rejection Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Process and Openness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
1. Introduction
The IETF meetings are an important part of the IETF process and their
hosting and organization must be carefully planned. The adequate
planning will allow to ensure that the attendees take advantage of
their time at the meeting with a minimum set of guarantees for
maximizing their performance, which also avoids unexpected situations
and expenses (for example in case of a meeting cancellation, lack of
adequate working conditions, lack of reliable connectivity, etc.).
This document describes elements for both, logistic and technical
criteria for the venue selection, logistic and technical contingency
measures, as well as details related to the planning and timing.
The criteria depicted in this document, in general, is not a strict
list of "must" items, but a list of what needs to be evaluated
considering variations and alternative solutions, or combinations of
them, that may be available and convenient. At the end is the IAD
who will have the final decision and will be accountable for it, and
he is consequently responsible for balancing the criteria defined in
this document according to the hosting/sponsorship availability.
Previous experience shows that things could go wrong when there is a
too strict dependence on specific people or equipment and no
alternative points of contact or availability is provisioned.
Overall contingency is consequently very important.
2. Location and Hosting Criteria
A general recommendation has been that the IETF should try to become
nearer to the people that contribute. However, the IETF is growing
in terms of participants from many countries and although a large
number of them are from North America, experience shows that when the
meeting is organized somewhere else, fewer than half the participants
come from North America. Consequently, to ensure open international
access, the IETF should meet outside North America at least one time
in three.
However, this is a very basic recommendation and the overall
selection criteria from this document is the one that will finally
qualify the location.
When choosing the location, it is important to consider as well, that
the surplus coming from the meetings is very important for the
sustainment of the IETF. Consequently, each particular meeting
overall cost should be considered as part of a more global operation,
not just each meeting as a standalone event. For instance, a lower
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
meeting cost (balance among food, facilities, network, meeting fees,
host capabilities, sponsorship, attendees cost), may not necessarily
mean a lower secretariat cost. At the same time, the overall average
participant cost must also be taken in consideration as it may happen
that a venue is cheap and generates a high surplus for the IETF, but
the average cost for attendees (flights, hotels, other costs),
becomes much more expensive and consequently even might generate a
drop in the attendance.
2.1. Vacation Destinations
Vacations destinations may seem difficult for some people, but this
could also be true for other situations always for a few people. At
the same time, frequent contributors and/or participants of IETF will
often not need to justify their participation regardless of the
location.
One consideration, specially relevant if a vacations location is
chosen, is to avoid places with a very heavy concentration of
visitors, together with a very heavy airport overload, which could
difficult an easy transit for IETF participants. The point in this
cases is to confirm that the additional load caused by IETF
participants is not an issue.
2.2. Hosting and Sponsorship
The choice of continent and country depends not only on the
logistical and technical criteria listed in this document, but also
on offers of hosting and sponsorship. The IETF also desires to meet
in countries with significant actual or potential participation.
Hosting and sponsorship have particular impact both financially and
organizationally.
Experience shows that when IETF goes to a new country, an eager and
committed local host organization is vital. Also, a local host
willing to sponsor some facilities for the meeting (without marketing
noise) may be of great assistance to the budget in any country.
Some of these matters may be subject to confidential negotiations,
which should be in the hands of IASA and in particular the IAD [1].
Regarding the sponsorship itself, the meetings are not directly
rewarding as a marketing action as it is usually the case for other
events. The reason for this is that the IETF community is mainly
engineers, which in general are not decision makers which may become
customers. However, sponsoring IETF offers an important rewarding
action from the perspective of the community contribution. As a
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
consequence, this "lower level" rewarding is one more reason to make
sure that not all the sponsorship details are openly disseminated,
unless clearly authorized by the host, and even do, it can be contra-
productive for future meetings.
However it may be interesting to have, after each meeting, a summary
evaluation of all the issues and costs, overall figures, which will
help to improve the criteria and the performance of the following
meetings.
2.3. Freedom of Participation
One more important consideration is the avoidance of locations in
countries where some attendees could be disallowed to come in or
where freedom of speech is not guaranteed for all he participants.
IETF is an open organization and anyone from any region should always
be able to participate, so the meeting place can not be a barrier.
2.4. Productivity and Working Environment Considerations
The productivity of working groups in IETF meetings is very
important, this means that the "ideal" venue should try to facilitate
good participation from frequent WG contributors and lots of local
participation (first time attendees which often want to participate
again in the future and become our next generation of contributors).
The rotation of locations for the increased participation of new
people is also very important.
The working environment should enable to do our business without too
much outside interference. For instance, toughness of visa criteria
and/or length of process, excluded contributors are factors.
Is expected that the country hosting the IETF meeting should not
restrict the participant's freedom of expression, for example by
blocking web sites or redirecting dns which may be required during
the meeting for usual participants business, censoring of personal
communications, blocking of VPN/SSH and other similar practices.
Freedom of speech during the meeting must be guaranteed as well.
It is also a barrier to be seriously considered if local participants
attending the IETF could be under pressure to support national
technical policies on threat of imprisonment or other punitive
actions, for their opinions.
Finally, it should be possible for local participants to attend the
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
meeting without any special government approval. Otherwise, the
venue does not support the increased local participation, which is
one of the goals for this criteria.
2.5. Attendance Limitation and Visa Considerations
The country hosting the event should not limit the attendance for any
participant. Places in the world were a significant number of
contributors can't go or if they have to do a lot of work, should be
rejected as a candidate to host the IETF.
The average time required to apply for & issue a visitor visa
suitable for a short-term visit for the IETF business need to
confirmed. If is not predictable in advance and measurable in small
numbers of months, that itself is a barrier to participation to be
seriously considered, together with the cost of that process.
Special considerations must be made by the IAD in case the visa
requirements are so stringent as to make it impossible or even
extremely difficult for some participants to attend.
The host country should not have unreasonable visa regulations, i.e.,
either visas are not required for the large majority of participants,
or if they are required, they can be obtained at low cost and don't
take any unnecessary overhead neither from the organization or the
attendees itself.
Citizens of certain countries may have difficulty in obtaining visas
for political reasons. The IASA should take all possible steps to
ensure that official governmental support is available for such
people.
Furthermore, explicit requirements and procedures should be worked
out in advance, coordinated with the host country government and
posted in the IETF meeting web page.
If a particular country refuses to cooperate with the IETF in setting
up procedures for a meeting in their country, then this should be
posted on the IETF meetings web page and this problem be considered
in selecting future venues.
2.6. Decision and Reporting
An open question is related to who is empowered to take the final
decision on any candidate venue/location. Currently it seems that
the IASA will need to take the decision about who "takes the
decision", being the IAD on this regards, just the official point of
contact, consulting the IETF chair and the IASA itself. Probably
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
also the secretariat and the volunteer team which has been around
without a formal position on this, should be consulted.
Despite the need for a certain degree of confidentiality, the
evaluation of the criteria should allow to be aware of the main
issues why a venue/location is adequate or is not, and consequently
some form of open report should be produced after each venue
evaluation.
3. Logistic Criteria for the Venue Selection
The average attendance to an IETF meeting is about 1.300 people,
however it may span up to 2.300 people in some circumstances (for
instance, depending on the meeting location).
Considering this, the suggested venue meeting room capacity is
calculated for about 1.600 people, including meeting space of about
60.000/5.500 square feets/meters.
3.1. Meeting Rooms Considerations
The following table shows the approximate needs for meeting rooms and
their expected size including a few days before the meeting,
considering the usual setup time. This represents only a basic
guideline for minimum requirements, and needs to be taken in the
context of the IETF progress, for example considering the
participants interest in different work areas, which may create
logistic problems when configuring each specific meeting agenda, in
the case that this table is taken a strict rule.
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
+------+------+-------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Room | Cap | M. | W | T | F | S | S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
+------+------+-------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| Term | | 464 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| NOC | | 93 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Stor | | 65 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| IETF | | 93 | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Staf | | 65 | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Host | | 65 | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Reg. | | 93 | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Rec. | 900 | 770 | | | | | X | | | | | | |
| Meet | 30t | 63 | | | | | X | | | | | | |
| Meet | 40t | 63 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 100t | 111 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 200t | 204 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 200t | 204 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 300t | 260 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 300t | 260 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 300t | 260 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 500t | 390 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 500t | 390 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 40hs | 195 | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Meet | 20hs | 73 | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Brk | | 1.391 | | | | | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Plen | 1500 | 139 | | | | | | | | X | X | | |
+------+------+-------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Meeting Rooms Requirements
Table 1
As already indicated above, obviously those figures could change from
meeting to meeting and are only an orientation. Indeed, most of the
time the space in the meeting rooms is becoming short and it this
should be further considered in the future, including additional
space to allow a more convenient working environment for the
participants.
Note that some of the meeting rooms can be used for several
functions, according to the meeting schedule, for example the plenary
meeting room is used only when the rest of the sessions aren't
occurring, breaks and registration area in the foyer, etc.
For some of the meeting rooms, such as the storage and NOC, it should
be possible to have multiple keys so they can be adequately
distributed to the relevant staff.
All the meeting rooms should be provided with sufficient number of
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
power sockets and cords for connecting the laptops of about 80% of
the expected attendees.
The rooms generally are hold in a 24 hours basis, and is highly
recommended the possibility to use them at any time w/o restrictions,
except for the required timing of the cleaning service. In certain
places this could be a cost issue and it may be not convenient.
This may be the case when using conference facilities instead of
meeting rooms in hotels. In those cases, it may be necessary to
increase the security when there are too many entrances. Some
additional technical issues may also arise according to previous
experience, such as access to wiring closets, AV facilities, etc.
However, from the IETF perspective, the rooms generally do not need
to be available in 24 hours basis (with the exception of the terminal
room), but removing and reinstalling cabling, access points, other
equipment, etc., should not be required by the venue.
Regarding the rooms availability and considering the variability of
them, if we define access as ability to enter the room to setup the
AP or plug in a switch to leave in a corner, but not necessarily to
enter the room to occupy it, it should be possible to get access to
the meeting room at least 12 hours prior to a meeting being held in
that room.
3.2. Other Venue Considerations
There should be reasonable seating space in open areas outside of the
meeting rooms, but not far removed from them, for impromptu hallway
discussions and such. Is also expected that power outlets are
available in those areas.
The venue should also take in consideration the adequate space
required to correctly handle the provision of refreshment during the
breaks, in a comfortable way for the participants.
A review by the technical team of the security of the location would
be helpful, for example considering the existence of cameras in
critical locations.
Access to the dock and a pallet jack is also very helpful, in order
to facilitate the reception of the network gear and other materials
used in the meeting.
The NOC should provision to setup a router on-site before the
meeting, in order to test everything well in advance. It is an
extremely important requirement that the location of this equipment
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
is accesible for the NOC.
The venue wiring plan (power and data) should be fully available up
front as part of the evaluation and during the meeting, with
immediate access to control rooms, for example in order to make sure
that if a circuit does trip, is possible to flip it back on almost
immediately.
The venue needs to be wheelchair accessible. Just as a side
information, the host should be aware also about other possible
variety of attendees handicaps; for example, some of the regular
attendees are blind, hypoglycemic, diabetic, or afflicted with any
number of other handicaps. One more example is that some attendees
may have concerns about availability (and even legality) of the drugs
they need (for instance, there are countries in which possession of
some drugs - even with a prescription - might get you in a serious
trouble). Some information from the host, on this regard, is very
welcome.
It is expected that the weather conditions are reasonable considering
the location of the airport, venue and suggested hotels and expected
attendees movement across them.
Similarly, the venue air-conditioning and/or heating capacity should
be adequate according to the expected attendance and external weather
conditions, including humidity and location altitude. The host
should take note of the side effect of 80% of the attendees using
their laptops, which typically will dissipate 150-200 watts of heat.
Obviously this does not mean that the air-conditioning/heating system
must be on all the time, on the contrary, thermostats should work
automatically in order to allow a comfortable working environment.
3.3. Sleeping Rooms Considerations
Furthermore, the approximate requirements for sleeping rooms will be
a block of around 5.515 rooms/nights. Once more, this is only a
generic guideline and as such should be noted.
The following table shows the needs for sleeping rooms including a
few days before the meeting.
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| 5 | 100 | 450 | 980 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 970 | 770 | 200 | 40 |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Sleeping Rooms Requirements
Table 2
3.4. Local Transportation Considerations
The location of the venue (and the main hotel/s in case the venue is
not a big hotel already) should be such that allows a quick movement
of the attendees between the sleeping and the meeting rooms. It is
strongly suggested that the meeting rooms are in fact located in the
main hotel (which a minimum capacity of about 60% of the required
sleeping rooms).
If the meeting rooms are not located in the same place as the main
block of sleeping rooms, inexpensive public transport means should
allow the movement of 100% of the attendees in less than 30 minutes,
considering the meeting timing and usual public transport utilization
by the locals. This may be the case when the meeting is hosted in a
convention center instead of a big hotel, which may not be available
in some locations, and is becoming a frequent practice for a number
of similar meetings.
The ideal situation is that a number of alternative hotels are at
walking distance (10-15 minutes) from the event venue.
If there is a need for several "official" hotels to be choosen as
IETF recommendations, which often is the case, specially when the
main one is insufficient to host most of the participants, some sort
of free of charge connectivity should be made at all the official
hotels.
3.5. Airport/Wide Area Transport Considerations
The airport and/or other wide area transport means need to have
adequate capacity and decent connections.
It is expected that there's easy and inexpensive transportation from
the nearby airports to the meeting site. Typically this implies an
airport under 50 kilometer's distance and the availability of public
transportation and/or affordable taxi services.
The airport should have adequate capacity considering the number of
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
expected attendees arriving and departing, for example with
sufficient number of scheduled flights and avoiding bottlenecks due
to local immigration practices.
The traveling to the venue location should be possible with a maximum
of one flight hop from a major hub. The airport must have a
diversity of international carriers.
Detailed instructions for the transportation and approximate cost to
get to and from the hotels should be made available.
3.6. Food Logistics Considerations
The attendees (1.600-2.000) should be able to get food for lunch and
dinner, according to the meeting timing, in a maximum of 60-90
minutes, including the transit time (back and forth).
In general, a requirement will be to have a variety of restaurants
within walking distance, allowing reservation of small and medium
tables. Special requirements (such as vegetarian food, others
choices) must be satisfied.
As a general consideration, we can state that meals must be available
when IETF needs them. If what this section specifies is not
completely possible, a combination of this with the on-site delivery
of good quality sandwiches (including vegetarian and alternative
choices) could be acceptable.
A list of places that can deliver food to the venue would be helpful.
Places for casual meetings such as BAR BoFs should also be available.
3.7. Technical and Regulatory Considerations
It should be possible to rent cell phones for the IETF participants.
This is specially relevant for the secretariat/registration/NOC
staff.
It should be possible to know up-front specific regulations of the
country related to different technological aspects which could affect
the provision of the network and equipment often used by the staff
and the attendees, for instance the wireless technology which is
authorized (it has been noticed that some countries, for example, did
not authorize 802.11a frequencies by default).
3.8. Health Considerations
It should be considered as a handicap if there is any high risk of
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
health impact for a high number of participants (such as malaria or
other infections or mandatory health checks at immigration).
This would be acceptable if the vaccination of the participants is
not going to impact the attendance and in any case, appropriate
recommendations about vaccinations and mandatory health checks should
be provided ahead the meeting, in advance enough for the participants
to take appropriate measures.
Obviously those recommendations are only guidelines for the attendees
to check with their own specific situation, because often it will
depend on a number of factors such as traveler's nationality, where
the traveler has recently been, where the traveler intends to go
within the destination country, the length of the stay, and even the
mode of transportation into the destination country.
4. Technical Criteria for the Venue Selection
In order to accommodate the IETF meeting with technical guarantees of
successful working capabilities for the attendees, the following
technical issues should be considered:
This is only a list, need some work. TBD.
o Evaluation of wireless voice communication ("Walkie Talkies" or
hand held radios). In some cases the secretariat can bring their
own equipment, but in some occasions is required to be rented from
the hotel.
o Wired link required for the registration desk/secretariat.
o Telecommunications room availability
o A mechanism to having access 24 hours a day, ahead of the meeting.
o Access to the wiring, what can be uses, what not.
o Some facilities have no wiring.
o Appropriate wiring plan (power and data).
o Some facilities have great network access, others nothing (no
fiber links up to the venue). How much can be provisioned and in
what time.
o Need to know the existing infrastructure and what can be done.
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
o Roof access, in case a WLAN link is required.
o If there is already a WLAN in the building can be turned off ?.
o Existing infrastructure: fiber, UTP/distances
o Feasibility/facility to setup new cables (fiber/UTP)
o Pipe (of pipe and drape) needs to be evaluated. Putting the
access points on something to raise them above the heads of the
people is useful. Acquiring the pipes, bases and in some cases
sand bags is an extra item to be considered, as many are needed
for each access point.
o Electrical power capacity
o 24 hours power. Capacity and special distribution issues.
Evaluate the cost of extra.
o Highly reliable Internet link and BW
o 20-25 Mbits, today, of symmetric is a minimum requirement. Backup
needed.
o Multihoming seems to be to strong requirement and will much depend
on the hosts capabilities, however it can be stated: Multiple
physical paths are recommended.
o Facilities for AV, room dimensions for screens (high/wide)
o IPv4 unicast
o DNS
o DHCP
o FTP
o WWW
o SAMBA (local mirror of ID's)
o IPv4 multicast: is still needed today ?
o IPv6 unicast
o IDS, other security issues
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
o No content filtering or ACLs.
o Managed devices across the entire network ?
o Test the network under heavy load
o Printers
o NOC - primary and backup contacts for all the issues/topics
o Provide stats and info on network status
o WLAN expertise and debugging/monitoring
o Document what can be wrong with the WLAN in advance to inform
users - FAQ to users
o Make the wired network production quality, WLAN experimental ?
o Wires to all essential services (e.g. audiocast, chairs,
presenter, jabber scribe)
o White board for the NOC, in visible place
5. Logistic Risks and Contingencies
Physical safety and security threats at the location must be
evaluated, understanding that the attendees come from all over the
world. Any specific threats must be addressed in advance (hiring
guards, etc.).
Appropriate warnings (e.g. about local crime risks) must be given.
An emergency response plan and risk analysis must be in place
throughout the meeting, covering issues such as food intoxication,
medical problems, indications when something is stolen, etc.
A red colored paper should be included in the participants
registration envelope with details about the evacuation plan. It
should also include a clear statement regarding the situation in case
of cancelation (for instance, attendee costs versus committed costs
with the host/hotel, retention of meeting fees, etc.).
An evaluation of war and terrorism risk and measures is also
required. The location should have no exceptional security
considerations on this regard.
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
Appropriate insurance should be investigated for IETF meetings.
Adequate contingency plans should be available for those risks.
6. Technical Risks and Contingencies
TBD.
7. Timing and Planning
IETF meeting dates should be planned sufficiently ahead, looking to
the calendars of other related meetings (in terms of people attending
them), in order to avoid meetings clashing among them.
The IETF is a meeting of a considerable size, which makes often
difficult to find a reasonable venue in a short time. The general
recommendation is that any candidate venue should be explored and
surveyed with a leading time not shorter than 24 months ahead the
expected meeting dates. Similarly the final decision for the
selected venue should be done non later than 18 months in advance to
the meeting starting date.
It is especially relevant also to consider that the network setup and
testing often require around one week time frame in order to ensure
an appropriate and quality deployment.
In order to provide the best conditions for the meals and according
to previous experience, the meeting schedule should be appropriately
adjusted to the local habits.
8. Venue Acceptance/Rejection Report
Despite the information provided by the proponent of a given venue,
the IAD should, before taking a final decision about the acceptance
or rejection of a given proposed venue, make an on-site survey for
those that seem to pass the criteria defined in this document.
The on-site survey report will compare the selection criteria against
the proposal information and the actual on-site findings, describing
possible discrepancies or issues which may need further
considerations even if they aren't directly described as part of the
criteria set out-coming from this document.
A "site report" for the selected site is important for future
planning. Similarly in the case of "failed" site decisions, possibly
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
in an anonymous way such as "X, Y, and Z were also considered but had
to be postponed or abandoned due to lack of available space, sponsor
agreement, technical considerations, local conditions, etc.".
9. Process and Openness
In order to demonstrate the compliance with the IETF meeting venue
selection criteria, the main information related to the proposal of a
site will be made publicly available in the IETF web site,
considering the exclusion of some/all of the negotiation confidential
issues which could be subjected to the sponsor/hosts decision.
A summary of the information need to be made public regardless of the
site being finally selected or not. If agreed by the proponent, it
could be very complete, including all the options being considered,
such as a given city and several venues in the same city, and so on.
Alternatively, it can be made available not citing the city, but
instead making clear the reasons why it has not been selected, in
order to help future proponents to foresee similar issues.
This will not only help the openness of the process but also as
collective knowledge helping into a better organization and solution
of issues for future meetings.
In principle there should not be hidden details to the community
regarding the proponent and site options and that should be the
overall rule for the publication of the details. However, once a
venue is selected, there may be contractual bindings which may not
allow to disclose all the negotiation details, which obviously will
be restricted to a minimum.
The published information will describe what was offered by the
proponent, as well as the report about the on-site survey which
should be done by the IAD before the final acceptance/rejection of a
given proposed venue.
10. Other Issues
Further elaboration is required (TBD) ?
11. Conclusions
TBD.
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
12. Security Considerations
This document doesn't have any protocol-related security
considerations.
13. IANA Considerations
This document doesn't have any specific IANA considerations.
14. Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the inputs of Adrian Farrel,
Albert Vezza, Andrew McGregor, Avri Doria, Bill Sommerfeld, Brett
Thorson, Brian Carpenter, Daniel Senie, Dave Crocker, Ed Juskevicius,
Eliot Lear, Elwyn Davies, Eric Gray, Eric Rosen, Frank Ellermann,
Gene Gaines, Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Hui Deng, James M. Polo, Jari
Arkko, Jim Martin, Joe Abley, Joel Jaeggli, John Loughney, Julien
Maisonneuve, Karen Odonoghue, Ken Raeburn, Marcia Beaulieu, Marshall
Eubanks, Melinda Shore, Ole Jacobsen, Paul Aitken, Pekka Savola,
Phillip Hallam-Baker, Randy Presuhn, Ray Pelletier, Sam Hartman and
Scott W Brim.
15. References
15.1. Normative References
15.2. Informative References
[1] Austein, R. and B. Wijnen, "Structure of the IETF Administrative
Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, RFC 4071, April 2005.
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
Author's Address
Jordi Palet Martinez
Consulintel
San Jose Artesano, 1
Alcobendas - Madrid
E-28108 - Spain
Phone: +34 91 151 81 99
Fax: +34 91 151 81 98
Email: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria November 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Palet Expires June 3, 2006 [Page 20]
